I was shocked and disgusted by the very serious allegations made against me in the Guardian newspaper this morning.

I have no hesitation in stating categorically that these allegations are wicked lies. I have therefore today issued a writ for defamation against the Guardian, its editor in chief, Mr Peter Preston, and the journalist who wrote the article, Mr Pallister.

I will now make the following comments on the principal charges and false statements reported in the Guardian.

The main allegation headlined on the front page of the Guardian states that I tried to arrange girls for a Saudi prince and his entourage at Inglewood Health Hydro. This is an outrageous falsehood. Not only did I never do any such thing during my 11 years as a director of the health hydro, it should also be made clear that the prince in question, Prince Mohammed bin Fahd, the son of King Fahd, never stayed at Inglewood.

His one and only short visit to Inglewood was for lunch some 13 years ago.

No girls were present and I made no suggestion that they should be present or available to him or his friends.

I must also mention that the former matron who has made this allegation was dismissed by Inglewood for dishonesty following a police investigation.

Criminal charges against the matron and another person were not pressed following the return of a large quantity of missing property.

The second allegation in the Guardian is the clear suggestion that while I was Minister of State for Defence Procurement from 1992-94 I had improper commercial relationships with two British citizens of Lebanese origin, Messrs Fouad and Ziad Makhzoumi, who were helping British companies to sell defence equipment exports to Lebanon.

This is another outrageous falsehood. The fact of the matter is that I was approached in late 1992 by the Makhzoumi brothers, who have been long-standing personal friends and former banking clients of mine, asking about defence sales possibilities in Lebanon.

As the minister responsible for defence exports I acted entirely correctly by turning the whole matter over to Ministry of Defence officials within the Defence Exports Sales Organisation.

I believe that MoD records will show clearly that I acted with scrupulous propriety both by reporting any former relevant banking connection with the Makhzoumis to officials and by thereafter not participating directly in negotiations with the Makhzoumis on this matter (which was very small in the scale of defence exports).

As for the linked suggestion that I improperly failed to register my former banking directorship with the Makhzoumis' company Future Management Services in the Register of Members' Interests, I am confident that I acted entirely in accordance with the register in not recording this non-remunerated directorship. There was no requirement to register such directorships until 1993.

The third article in the Guardian attacking me is a confusing, old-hat re-hash of the creative collaboration between the newspaper and Mr Mohamed Al Fayed's Ritz Hotel in Paris, about alleged irregularities over my stay there in September 1993.

Nothing in the Guardian article this morning shakes my conviction that my stay in the Ritz Hotel did not breach the rules governing the conduct of ministers as laid down in Questions of Procedure for Ministers.

If there is anything new in the Guardian's latest regurgitation of this episode it seems to be the suggestion that I was in the hotel on an expenses paid business visit arranged by a lady - a lady whom I have never met nor heard of - for the purpose of meeting three businessmen named for the first time in the article.

Let me make it crystal clear that not only did I not meet any of these three gentlemen in Paris, I am informed that none of them was staying at the Ritz during my visit of September 18-19.

These facts are already known to and can easily be re-checked by the Guardian since the paper does not seem to have much difficulty in obtaining access to the hotel's records.

There are many other misrepresentations scattered throughout the Guardian's reports. They deal with matters such as cars, visits to the Middle East, and my relationships with my constituents. Suffice to say at this stage that all these insinuations are either inaccurate, wrong or false.

The total picture for the Guardian's report is therefore one of deliberate misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies, and is clearly part of the paper's long campaign of sustained attempts to discredit me.

I hope it is now obvious why I have taken action against the Guardian.

Needless to say if these libels are repeated in the World In Action programme, as the Guardian says they will be, then I shall take similar legal action against Granada Television and the programme makers, one of whom is no stranger to losing libel actions brought by Members of Parliament. What a pity it is that World In Action refused me the opportunity to clear my name in front of the same public whom they are so keen to mislead.

I said at the outset that I was shocked by the Guardian's conduct. But my sense of shock has not in any way weakened my sense of determination to fight this matter to a finish in the courts and elsewhere.

I came into politics for the purpose of making a contribution to public service in my constituency, in Parliament and in Government.

I believe my experience of various walks of life, including the experience of doing honourable business in the Middle East, has strengthened my ability to make such a contribution. And because I do have such a strong commitment to the ideal of public service, I would like to make it clear that I am taking legal action not simply to clear my own name and reputation of the deeply damaging slurs that have been cast upon me. For there are greater public interest issues at stake here, far more important than my own position.

Here in Britain we have both the best media in the world and the worst media in the world. That small latter element is spreading a cancer in our society today, which I will call the cancer of bent and twisted journalism.

The malignant cells of that bent and twisted journalistic cancer include those who engage in forgeries or other instruments of deceit to obtain information for the purposes of a smear story.

They include those who hold grievances or grudges of their own and are prepared to give or sell false testimony about others to further their own bitter agendas.

Above all they include those who try to abuse media power to destroy or denigrate honourable institutions and individuals who have done nothing seriously wrong.

I have done nothing wrong.

I have certainly made my fair share of mistakes in 30-odd years of life as a writer, businessman, parliamentarian and minister but I am prepared to stand on my record as a decent and honourable one - in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - and to defend it not only before the jury of the courts but before the wider jury of all fair minded people.

If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it.